My target is highly respectable DENIALISM , not the cranks ...

Michael Marshall

My denialist target is the unconscious bias still lurking within mainstream science and mainstream scientists.

I am not after, in the main, the cranks who deny HIV-AIDS/9-11/the Holocaust/Evolution/Climate Change etc.

I have much bigger fish to fry.

My target is The Enlightenment Project and its offshoots : Modernity/Positivism/Scientism and their collective claim that there is nothing in the universe we can not and will not know - eventually.

Scientists who say this are DENIERS all right, deniers of the possibility of limits to Certainty.

They freely admit the space trip to Perfect Certainty will be very long, very expensive, filled with disappointments and errors - but that Science will ultimately arrive.

I ,on the other hand feel ,we can never know or control much of Reality --- in part, simply for lack of money.

To take an example we all talk about but no one ever does anything about, the weather will never be perfectly known.

 It is simply too expensive to fund all the observation posts and computing power needed to do even a reasonably close-to-perfect prediction job.

The Science is there, has been there - but the money has not and never will be.

Partly it is a size issue.

Humans are simply too Big for quarks and too small for Quasars to know much about either without spending an inordinate amount of money that we haven't got to spend, not when more pressing human-sized problems face us.

If this sort of scientific DENIALISM is sheer Blue Sky/ Castles in Spain/ Pie in the Sky wishful thinking , the COMMENSALIST science alternative is refreshingly down to earth.

It cheerfully accepts limits and strives instead to see just how far we can push them along,  for the betterment of life on Earth.

I am aware of many other scientist authors/bloggers out there working to refute crank denialism.

 But I currently know only of a few scientists (insider agitators as it were) who are tackling my definition of denialism from inside their institutional home of mainstream science and mathematics.

That takes a high level of intellectual bravery and I salute them.

In upcoming blog posts I will discuss some of these pioneers' work to explore whether it parallels my own efforts....

POSITIVISM:MODERNITY:SCIENTISM:DENIALISM

Michael Marshall

Re-brand that old Platonist dreck all you want, it is still just  junk science under the hood.

Denying that there are limits to what humanity can know and do about Reality/the Universe/Life is not going to make those limits, those complexities, those uncertainties go away.

Pushing pseudo-certitudes to feed yours and our addiction for certainty, isn't go to help either.

Instead, dip your feet into the Diracian Sea of Uncertainty - the water is not as bad as you think.

Explore, enjoy, engage, challenge yourself.

Why deny yourself and others of one of Life's greatest pleasures: a sense of venturing into the unknown to see whatever can be seen....

Neo-Romantic ? So now you're calling COMMENSALITY 'neo-romantic' ?

Michael Marshall

When we compare it to the Modernist Science of 100 years ago ( the science of just before World War One ), Commensal Science does appear to be a near-perfect exact opposite.

Appearances can be deceiving, but in broad strokes, it does seem to oppose the basic tenets of Modernity root and branch.

But venture back two hundred years ago,  and Commensal Science at first blush seems to be an awful lot like the Romantic Science of the era ( from roughly the 1790s to the 1840s).

But appearances are deceiving, once again, and Commensal Science both agrees with and disagrees with Romantic Science enough to be more fairly called Neo-Romantic Science.

I don't really like using terms like neo- or post- , they seem so loose, so cliched.

But like everyone else, I use them when no other term appears to convey what I mean any better.

The very self-consciousness in the use of the term neo- is exactly what I want to convey --- because so many of today's Green or Commensal scientists do deliberately hearken back to Romantic Science (and Romanticsm generally) for inspiration with which to attack The Enlightenment Project and Modernity.

Like Plato and Aristotle, these things ebb in and out of fashion:

Classicalism/Romanticism/Positivism/Commensalism.

On and on and on - ever onward - like the eternally alternating ins and outs of election results in a democracy.....